[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 30 November 2023

Fri Dec 1 15:18:26 UTC 2023

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 504.0-B-2, Attitude Data Messages (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Fischer, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Cola, Wilmot)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  A few remarks:

1) I read:

3.2.2.1.2 Version 1.0 shall be reserved for the initial version accepted by the CCSDS as an official Recommended Standard (‘Blue Book’). Version 2.0 shall be used for this Blue Book.

I'm wondering whether this statement is still valid once this book (issue 2) will be published and the previous issue (1) will get silver status.

2) page 5-2, i read:

b) a single mandatory Metadata section (data about data);

what about "info about data" instead?

3) page 7-15 I read:

7.8.7 Figures7-2 7-2 and 7-3 and 7-3

please remove the duplicated figures pointers

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve with Conditions):  1) The LunaNet LNIS document is defining Attitude Data Messages, it may be important that these messages can be mapped to messages that are exchanged between spacecraft and/or space surface systems such as the MSG-G4 Sorbit Ephemeris & clock correction message. The use cases are similar.

2) I do not see any constraints on parameter values defined in the schemas. Parameter constraints may be mission specific and should be exchanged as well so that parameters can be checked prior to use in an automated way.

The above may be out of scope, but should be considered.

Just a comment, the recomndation for ASCII in section 2.1.2 is outdated. I would hope that Attitude Data Messages are not being generated by text editors or word processors with humans verifying by looking at printouts.

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 354.0-M-1, Symmetric Key Management (Magenta Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  5 (100%) (Fischer, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Comments:

1) Consider rewording in Overview "operated fully remotely, only connected to the operator". Spacecraft do connect to spacecraft.  Surface systems and docked vehicles will also connect and it will likely be wired.  Air/vacuum gaps are not guaranteed. Many space systems have a high degree of autonomy and are not operated fully remotely.

2) Consider non point-to-point scenarios. DTN will support one to many connection where the same key is distributed to more than two systems.

3) Why was secure data storage not considered? The same symmetric key approach could be applied. This is a scenario appling to crew medical data and a near term requirement for the Artemis program.

4) Section A1.6  "key in question shall be" is this now normative? Should it be a "should"?

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-006 Approval to publish CCSDS 350.5-G-2, Space Data Link Security Protocol—Summary of Concept and Rationale (Green Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Fischer, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  Just a minor clarification, the text often refers to RF reception and transmission only in a few pictures. Does it mean that the SDLS recommendations does not apply to optical communications?

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Comments:

1) Section 2.2 "mission operations are conducted and manned 24 hours/7 days a week". Some missions are 8 hours five days a week.  Some commercial missions are fully automated with humans only to handle anomalies. SLE still works just fine for those.  Hours of operations is not a motivation for SLE. Consider rewording the paragraph to avoid implying staffed operations was a motivator for data link security.

2) Overall concern that while Link Layer security is needed in the short term, the future LunaNet concepts would do better with network layer security similar to the internet. Consider emergency comm or search and rescue as use cases for LunaNet.

3) I did not find any Relay satellite discussion in section 2.3.1 MISSION NETWORK TOPOLOGIES.  Is that just out of scope? 

4) What are the "£T" characters in the document? 
	11/29/

Total Respondents:  6

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-007 Approval to publish CCSDS 870.0-G-1, Electronic Data Sheets and Dictionary of Terms for Onboard Devices and Components (Green Book, Issue 1)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  1 (25%) (He)
 Approve with Conditions:  3 (75%) (Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  I agree with the points made by Tomaso.  The Exec Summary seems out of place, I'd include it in Sec 1.4, Rationale. The term "vehicle" is not defined in the document nor in CCSDS Terms registry.  Recommend the use of "spacecraft", which is carefully defined. There appear to be a number of other terms that are used without being defined. There are a number of acronyms that are used before they are defined.  Request that the document be "scrubbed" to fix all of these issue.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  1) I've never seen a CCSDS document starting with an executive summary. Shall the content instead go in Section 1 or 2?

2) is the term vehicle consolidated in the CCSDS nomenclature? At first glance it's not fully clear to me which space assets we refer to with the term "vehicle".

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve with Conditions):  Concur with Tomaso and Peter.

Furthermore, I attach a minor editorial PID.

Total Respondents:  4

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     MOIMS
     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-008 Approval to release CCSDS 529.1-R-1, Mission Operations—Mission Planning and Scheduling Services (Red Book, Issue 1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Fischer, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (40%) (Shames, Cola)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  This is a new document, and I have given it a close read.  There are a significant number of confusing definitions and terms, issues with presentation and formating, and other issues with the document.  I have not yet read it in its entirety, but there are already enough issues noted to request that the document be reviewed and "scrubbed".  I do commit to reading the rest of it and providing feedback.

     Tomaso de Cola (Approve with Conditions):  Maybe it's more relavant for the update of other MAL existing book:

In the security annex it is claimed that the channel security is matter of the transport layer. From the existing MAL association blue books (i.e. MAL over TCP/HTTP/SPP/ZMTP) I cannot find however very specific details on this. There are certainly mention about IPsec, TLS, SSL, HTTPS, but not such to provide means to implement a secure association.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Comments to consider as part of agency review.
1) In section 1.4 “security considerations are assumed to be handled at the MO framework layer or below” You might consider signed messages and/or file as being above the MO framework especially if the plans are to be used on deployed space systems or critical operations. The term “body signature” seems misleading. Isn’t it just the body/contents of the structure?
2) Overall concern that with the MAL book is being substantially updated, some of the concepts referenced in the MAL framework may no longer be valid. Would this book have to change if the MAL has changes?
3) There is overall value in an exchangeable format for operations plan, but it should be understood that an organization’s mission operations facility already has systems in place that have been developed and certified for the mission class at great cost. It would be useful for those mission operations facilities to have a standard format to exchange plans such that the plans could be integrated into their existing systems.  This format could be used without having to replace the existing framework and tools.
4) In Figure 3-24: Position Data Type, there are several parameters listed as strings, is there a standard dictionary of terms that would be used? Something like Earth, Moon, Mars, as position references? I assume alititude is above the PositionReference.  This comment is general and not specific to the figure. All plans should be based on an standard DoT.

Total Respondents:  5

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-10-009 Approval of historical status for CCSDS 910.4-B-2, Cross Support Reference Model—Part 1: Space Link Extension Services (Blue Book, Issue 2, October 2005)

Results of CESG poll beginning 31 October 2023 and ending 30 November 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Fischer, Shames, Cola, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

Total Respondents:  6

All Areas responded to this question.

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *